Search

Background: We investigate and try to find out the optimal duration and intensity for the treatment and content useful for clinical work. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effects of lifestyle intervention on the management of childhood overweight and to explore the factors that contribute to the outcome, as well as the costs for the health care system. The hypotheses of the study are that lifestyle intervention is efficient in reducing BMI-SDS and thus effective in preventing overweight from progressing to obesity, and it is also cost-effective. Methods and analyses: We aim to recruit 80 children and they randomize either to an intervention group or a control group with standard care. The intervention group receives intensive, family-based diet, and physical activity counseling, delivered by a multidisciplinary team of a pediatrician, a nurse, and a clinical nutritionist. The control group does not receive any lifestyle intervention during the study. The inclusion criteria are age of 6–12 years, weight-for-height ≥ + 40% or ≥ + 30%, and increasing curve. All participants fill out the study questionnaires and plasma samples are taken at baseline and at 12 months. Outcome variables will be compared between intervention and control groups. Discussion: If the effects of this lifestyle intervention are positive and it is also cost-effective, the implication of our study will be of great importance to the treatment of childhood obesity and to improve the health care system. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06126679. Registered on 25 October 2028 in Finland. ORCID: 0009-0009-6659-5290. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute leukaemias (AL) are life-threatening blood cancers that can be potentially cured with treatment involving myelosuppressive, multiagent, intensive chemotherapy (IC). However, such treatment is associated with a risk of serious infection, in particular invasive fungal infection (IFI) associated with prolonged neutropenia. Current practice guidelines recommend primary antifungal (AF) prophylaxis to be administered to high-risk patients to reduce IFI incidence. AFs are also used empirically to manage prolonged neutropenic fever. Current strategies lead to substantial overuse of AFs. Galactomannan (GM) and β-D-glucan (BG) biomarkers are also used to diagnose IFI. Combining both biomarkers may enhance the predictability of IFI compared to administering each test alone. Currently, no large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared a biomarker-based diagnostic screening strategy without AF prophylaxis to AF prophylaxis (without systematic biomarker testing). Methods: BioDriveAFS is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm RCT of 404 participants from UK NHS Haematology departments. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either a biomarker-based antifungal stewardship (AFS) strategy, or a prophylactic AF strategy, which includes existing standard of care (SoC). The co-primary outcomes will be AF exposure in the 12-month post randomisation and the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L measured at 12-month post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include total AF exposure, probable/proven IFI, survival (all-cause mortality and IFI mortality), IFI treatment outcome, AF-associated adverse effects/events/complications, resource use, episodes of neutropenic fever requiring hospital admission or outpatient management, AF resistance in fungi (non-invasive and invasive) and a Desirability of Outcome Ranking. The trial will have an internal pilot phase during the first 9 months. A mixed methods process evaluation will be integrated in parallel to the internal pilot phase and full trial, aiming to robustly assess how the intervention is delivered. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. Discussion: The BioDriveAFS trial aims to further the knowledge of strategies that will safely optimise AF use through comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-led diagnostic strategy versus prophylactic AF to prevent and manage IFI within acute leukaemia. The evidence generated from the study will help inform global clinical practice and approaches within antifungal stewardship. Trial registration: ISRCTN11633399. Registered 24/06/2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and weakness during thumb pinch leading to disability. There is no consensus about the best surgical treatment in unresponsive cases. The treatment is associated with costs and the recovery may take up to 1 year after surgery depending on the procedure. No randomized controlled trials have been conducted comparing ball and socket TMC prosthesis to trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction. Methods: A randomized, blinded, parallel-group superiority clinical trial comparing trapeziectomy with abductor pollicis longus (APL) arthroplasty and prosthetic replacement with Maïa® prosthesis. Patients, 18 years old and older, with a clinical diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral TMC OA who fulfill the trial's eligibility criteria will be invited to participate. The diagnosis will be made by experienced hand surgeons based on symptoms, clinical history, physical examination, and complementary imaging tests. A total of 106 patients who provide informed consent will be randomly assigned to treatment with APL arthroplasty and prosthetic replacement with Maïa® prosthesis. The participants will complete different questionnaires including EuroQuol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), the Quick DASH, and the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at baseline, at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after surgical treatment. The participants will undergo physical examination, range of motion assessment, and strength measure every appointment. The trial's primary outcome variable is the change in the visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline to 12 months. A long-term follow-up analysis will be performed every year for 5 years to assess chronic changes and prosthesis survival rate. The costs will be calculated from the provider's and society perspective using direct and indirect medical costs. Discussion: This is the first randomized study that investigates the effectiveness and cost-utility of trapeziectomy and ligament reconstruction arthroplasty and Maïa prosthesis. We expect the findings from this trial to lead to new insights into the surgical approach to TMC OA. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04562753. Registered on June 15, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early blood transfusion improves survival in patients with life-threatening bleeding, but the optimal transfusion strategy in the pre-hospital setting has yet to be established. Although there is some evidence of benefit with the use of whole blood, there have been no randomised controlled trials exploring the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of whole blood versus component therapy for trauma patients with life-threatening bleeding. The aim of this trial is to determine whether pre-hospital leukocyte-depleted whole blood transfusion is better than standard care (blood component transfusion) in reducing the proportion of participants who experience death or massive transfusion at 24 h. Methods: This is a multi-centre, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients of any age will be eligible if they have suffered major traumatic haemorrhage and are attended by a participating air ambulance service. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with traumatic haemorrhage who have died (all-cause mortality) or received massive transfusion in the first 24 h from randomisation. A number of secondary clinical, process, and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost (provision of whole blood, hospital, health, and wider care resource use) and outcome data will be synthesised to present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the trial primary outcome and cost per quality-adjusted life year at 90 days after injury. We plan to recruit 848 participants (a two-sided test with 85% power, 5% type I error, 1-1 allocation, and one interim analysis would require 602 participants—after allowing for 25% of participants in traumatic cardiac arrest and an additional 5% drop out, the sample size is 848). Discussion: The SWiFT trial will recruit 848 participants across at least ten air ambulances services in the UK. It will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in the management of patients with life-threatening bleeding in the pre-hospital setting. Trial registration: ISRCTN: 23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072, 21 Dec 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional). Method: A cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage). Results: Of the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, − 0.09, (95% CI, − 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, − 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data. Conclusion: There was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. Methods: Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome is men's self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. Trial registration: ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Influenza (flu) vaccination rates in UK care home staff are extremely low. Less than 40% of staff in care homes are vaccinated for influenza (flu), presenting risks to the health of frail residents and potential staff absence from cross-infection. Staff often do not perceive a need for vaccination and are unaware they are entitled to free flu vaccination. The FluCare study, a cluster randomised control trial (RCT), uses behavioural interventions to address barriers. Videos, posters, and leaflets are intended to raise awareness of flu vaccination benefits and debunk myths. On-site staff vaccination clinics increase accessibility. Financial incentives to care homes for improved vaccination rates and regular monitoring influence the environment. This paper outlines the planned process evaluation which will describe the intervention's mechanisms of action, explain any changes in outcomes, identify local adaptations, and inform design of the implementation phase. Methods/design: A mixed method process evaluation to inform the interpretation of trial findings. Objectives: • Describe the intervention as delivered in terms of dose and fidelity, including adaptations and variations across care homes. • Explore the effects of individual intervention components on primary outcomes. • Investigate the mechanisms of impact. • Describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components (including videos, leaflets, posters, and flu clinics) from participant perspectives (care home manager, care home staff, flu clinic providers). • Describe the characteristics of care homes and participants to assess reach. A purposive sample of twenty care homes (ten in the intervention arm, ten in the control arm) for inclusion in the process evaluation. Data will include (1) study records including care home site profiles, (2) responses to a mechanism of action questionnaire, and (3) semi-structured interviews with care home staff and clinic providers. Quantitative data will be descriptively reported. Interview data will be thematically analysed and then categories mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Discussion: Adopting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation approach will help ensure data is captured on all aspects of the trial, enabling a full understanding of the intervention implementation and RCT findings. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is the commonest endocrine cause of short stature and may occur in isolation (I-GHD) or combined with other pituitary hormone deficiencies. Around 500 children are diagnosed with GHD every year in the UK, of whom 75% have I-GHD. Growth hormone (GH) therapy improves growth in children with GHD, with the goal of achieving a normal final height (FH). GH therapy is given as daily injections until adult FH is reached. However, in many children with I-GHD their condition reverses, with a normal peak GH detected in 64–82% when re-tested at FH. Therefore, at some point between diagnosis and FH, I-GHD must have reversed, possibly due to increase in sex hormones during puberty. Despite increasing evidence for frequent I-GHD reversal, daily GH injections are traditionally continued until FH is achieved. Methods/design: Evidence suggests that I-GHD children who re-test normal in early puberty reach a FH comparable to that of children without GHD. The GHD Reversal study will include 138 children from routine endocrine clinics in twelve UK and five Austrian centres with I-GHD (original peak GH < 6.7 mcg/L) whose deficiency has reversed on early re-testing. Children will be randomised to either continue or discontinue GH therapy. This phase III, international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial (including an internal pilot study) will assess whether children with early I-GHD reversal who stop GH therapy achieve non-inferior near FH SDS (primary outcome; inferiority margin 0.55 SD), target height (TH) minus near FH, HRQoL, bone health index and lipid profiles (secondary outcomes) than those continuing GH. In addition, the study will assess cost-effectiveness of GH discontinuation in the early retesting scenario. Discussion: If this study shows that a significant proportion of children with presumed I-GHD reversal generate enough GH naturally in puberty to achieve a near FH within the target range, then this new care pathway would rapidly improve national/international practice. An assumed 50% reversal rate would provide potential UK health service cost savings of £1.8–4.6 million (€2.05–5.24 million)/year in drug costs alone. This new care pathway would also prevent children from having unnecessary daily GH injections and consequent exposure to potential adverse effects. Trial registration: EudraCT number: 2020-001006-39 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial. Methods: WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test. Discussion: The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial. Trial registration: WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112. Date Registered: 14/08/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. Methods: The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. Discussion: The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured). Trial registration: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216. Registered on 27/01/2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe mental illness (SMI) presents a major challenge worldwide, affecting approximately 5–8% of the world's population. It causes significant distress to affected people, families and wider communities, generating high costs through loss of productivity and ongoing healthcare use. Over 75% of patients with psychosis receive inadequate care and experience a negative financial impact and reduced quality of life (QoL). It is therefore a priority to reduce the treatment gap by providing low-cost, effective interventions for people with psychosis. Our research project, PIECEs, is designed to explore, adapt and test a low-cost, approach (DIALOG+) that makes use of existing resources to improve community-based care for patients with psychosis. The research will be conducted in two urban sites: Karachi, Pakistan and Chennai, India. DIALOG+ is a novel, technology-assisted and resource-oriented intervention, based on QoL research, concepts of patient-centred communication, IT developments and solution-focused therapy. However, the approach has not been rigorously tested within India and Pakistan. Our randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DIALOG+ in improving the QoL and clinical outcomes for individuals with long-term psychosis being treated in the community in India and Pakistan. Methods: To assess the acceptability, feasibility, and cost effectiveness of DIALOG+, we will conduct a cluster RCT with 210 patients and 14 clinicians in each country. The intervention will be used during a routine interaction between a clinician and a patient. It consists of a patient-centred assessment (the DIALOG scale) whereby the clinician invites the patient to rate their satisfaction with different life domains and treatment aspects, which forms the active control group. The intervention group will follow this up with a four-step solution-focused approach to identify the patient's resources and develop solutions to deal with the patient's concerns (DIALOG+). Discussion: If shown to be effective DIALOG+ has the potential to improve community-based care and the QoL for millions of people within India and Pakistan who experience psychosis. Trial registration: The trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN13022816 on 9 February 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major depression represents a pressing challenge for health care. In England, Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services provide evidence-based psychological therapies in a stepped-care approach to patients with depression. While introduction of these services has successfully increased access to therapy, estimates suggest that about 50% of depressed patients who have come to the end of the IAPT pathway still show significant levels of symptoms. This study will investigate whether Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), a group intervention combining training in mindfulness meditation and elements from cognitive therapy, can have beneficial effects in depressed patients who have not responded to high-intensity therapy in IAPT. It will seek to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MBCT as compared to the treatment these patients would usually receive. Methods: In a 2-arm randomised controlled trial, patients who currently meet the criteria for major depressive disorder and who have not sufficiently responded to at least 12 sessions of IAPT high-intensity therapy will be allocated, at a ratio of 1:1, to receive either MBCT (in addition to treatment as usual [TAU]) or continue with TAU only. Assessments will take place at baseline, 10 weeks and 34 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be reduction in depression symptomatology 34 weeks post-randomisation as assessed using the Public Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes will include depressive symptomatology at 10 weeks post-randomisation and other clinical outcomes measured at 10-week and 34-week follow-up, along with a series of binarised outcomes to indicate clinically significant and reliable change. Evaluations of cost-effectiveness will be based on assessments of service use costs collected using the Adult Service Use Schedule and health utilities derived from the EQ-5D. Discussion: This trial will add to the evidence base for the use of MBCT in depressed treatment non-responders. It will constitute the first trial to test MBCT following non-response to psychological therapy, with results providing a direct estimate of efficacy within the IAPT pathway. As such, its results will offer an important basis for decisions regarding the adoption of MBCT for non-responders within IAPT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05236959. Registered on 11 February 2022. ISRCTN 17755571. Registered on 2 February 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The care home staff influenza vaccination rate in England is significantly lower than the 75% World Health Organisation recommendation. This represents a substantial potential for resident harm. Barriers to staff vaccination stem from individual and organisational levels. Existing interventions address some but not all barriers and are not underpinned by behavioural science theory. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to improve care home staff vaccination rates compared to routine practice. Set in care homes with both nursing and residential focus, and a range of ownership status, only homes providing long stay care to older people with a staff vaccination rate below 40% are eligible to participate. Participation expressions of interest will be sought using a variety of approaches prior to seeking consent. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of staff vaccinated at 6 months, with secondary outcome measures being proportion vaccinated at 3 months, numbers of staff sick days, general practitioner and nurse visits to care home, care home resident hospitalisations and mortality. Based on the assumptions that the mean cluster (care home) size is 54 staff, a coefficient of variation of 0.48, control vaccination rate is 55%, intervention 75%, intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.2 and with 90% power, and 20% attrition, we require 39 care homes per arm. Blocked randomisation will be at the level of care home, stratified by the proportion of non-white care home staff, and implemented by Norwich Clinical Trials Unit. The intervention comprises co-designed information videos and posters, provision of in-house staff vaccination clinics, and incentive scheme and monthly data collection on trial outcomes. Beyond usual practice, the control arm will additionally contribute monthly data. Data will be collected at the start, monthly and at 6 months, and analysis will be blind to allocation. Statistical analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle with the difference in vaccination rates between groups compared using a random effect logistic regression model at the staff-level. This will be the first study to use a theory-informed intervention designed to comprehensively address identified barriers to care home staff influenza vaccination. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.Methods: This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation.Discussion: This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.Trial Registration: The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible. Pre-specified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive trial should be conducted. We aimed to examine how researchers report and plan to assess progression criteria in external pilot trial funding applications submitted to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of progression criteria inclusion in Stage 1 (outline) and corresponding Stage 2 (full) funding applications for external randomised external pilot trials submitted to NIHR RfPB between July 2017 and July 2019.Results: Of the 100 Stage 1 outline applications assessed, 95 were eligible for inclusion (of these, 52 were invited to Stage 2 full application; 43 were rejected) and 49/52 were eligible for inclusion at Stage 2 full application (of these, 35 were awarded funding; 14 were rejected). Over half of applications assessed at Stage 1 (48/95, 51%), and 73% of those assessed at Stage 2 (36/49) included progression criteria in their research plans. Progression criteria were most often reported in a stop-go format, often with additional specified factors that should be considered when determining feasibility (Stage 1 33/48, 69%; Stage 2 21/36, 58%). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators of feasibility to inform progression criteria. One-third of applications provided some justification or rationale for their targets (Stage 1 16/48, 33%; Stage 2 12/36, 33%). Funding committee feedback mentioned progression criteria in over 20% of applications (Stage 1 22/95, 23%; Stage 2 11/49, 22%) to either request the addition of progression criteria or provide justification for the criteria stipulated.Conclusions: Our findings indicate that researchers do not always include progression criteria in external randomised pilot trial applications submitted to research funders. This can result in a lack of transparency in the assessment of randomised pilot trial feasibility.Trial Registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/89ap7, registered 29th June 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces head injury deaths in patients with CT scan evidence of intracranial bleeding after mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid for people with mild TBI in the pre-hospital setting, prior to CT scanning, is uncertain. A large randomised controlled trial (CRASH-4) is planned to address this issue, but the economic justification for it has not been established. The aim of the analysis was to estimate the likelihood of tranexamic acid being cost-effective given current evidence, the treatment effects required for cost-effectiveness, and the expected value of performing further research.Methods: An early economic decision model compared usual care for mild TBI with and without tranexamic acid, for adults aged 70 and above. The evaluation was performed from a UK healthcare perspective over a lifetime time horizon, with costs reported in 2020 pounds (GBP) and outcomes reported as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All analyses used a £20,000 per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold.Results: In the base case analysis, tranexamic acid was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4885 per QALY gained, but the likelihood of it being cost-effective was highly dependent on the all-cause mortality treatment effect. The value of perfect information was £22.4 million, and the value of perfect information for parameters that could be collected in a trial was £21.9 million. The all-cause mortality risk ratio for tranexamic acid and the functional outcomes following TBI had the most impact on cost-effectiveness.Conclusions: There is a high degree of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid for older adults experiencing mild TBI, meaning there is a high value of performing future research in the UK. The value in a global context is likely to be far higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying and supporting young children who are at risk of developing anxiety disorders would benefit children, families, and wider society. Elevated anxiety symptoms, inhibited temperament, and high parental anxiety are established risk factors for later anxiety disorders, but it remains unclear who is most likely to benefit from prevention and early intervention programmes. Delivering an online intervention through schools to parents of young children who have one or more of these risks could maximise reach. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of delivering an online parent-led intervention, compared with usual school provision only, for children (aged 4-7) identified as at risk for anxiety disorders on the basis of at least one risk factor. We also aim to identify the characteristics of children who do and do not benefit from intervention and mechanisms of change from the intervention.Methods: The design will be a parallel group, superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, with schools (clusters) randomised to intervention or usual school practice arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified according to level of deprivation within the school. The study will recruit and randomise at least 60 primary/infant schools in England, and on the basis of recruiting 60 schools, we will recruit 1080 trial participants (540 per arm). Parents of all children (aged 4-7) in sampled Reception, Year 1, and Year 2 classes will be invited to complete screening questionnaires. Children who screen positive on the basis of anxiety symptoms, and/or behavioural inhibition, and/or parent anxiety symptoms will be eligible for the trial. Parents/carers of children in schools allocated to the intervention arm will be offered a brief online intervention; schools in both arms will continue to provide any usual support for children and parents throughout the trial. Assessments will be completed at screening, baseline (before randomisation), 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be the absence/presence of an anxiety disorder diagnosis at 12 months.Discussion: The trial will determine if delivering an online intervention for parents of young children at risk of anxiety disorders identified through screening in schools is effective and cost-effective.Trial Registration: ISRCTN 82398107 . Prospectively registered on Jan. 14, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Different approaches have been used by dentists to base their decision. Among them, there are the aesthetical issues that may lead to more interventionist approaches. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants-CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less-invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic approaches for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth and extrapolating these findings to a longer time horizon.Methods: A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/ NCT03520309 ), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children's restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is 2 years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions (primary CEA analysis), the time to these new interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and changes in children's oral health-related quality of life (secondary analyses). For CUA, the effect will be tooth-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Using Markov models, a longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon.Discussion: The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after 2 years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, these trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such interventions.Trial Registration: NCT03520309 . Registered May 9, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The advised standard treatment for bacterial brain abscess following surgery is 6 to 8 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, but an early switch to oral antibiotic treatment has been suggested to be equally effective.Methods: This investigator-initiated, international, multi-center, parallel group, open-label, randomized (1:1 allocation) controlled trial will examine if oral treatment after 2 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to standard 6-8 weeks of IV antibiotics for bacterial brain abscess in adults (≥ 18 years of age). The study will be conducted at hospitals across Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Sweden. Exclusion criteria are severe immunocompromise or impaired gastro-intestinal absorption, pregnancy, device-related brain abscesses, and brain abscess caused by nocardia, tuberculosis, or Pseudomonas spp. The primary objective is a composite endpoint at 6 months after randomization consisting of all-cause mortality, intraventricular rupture of brain abscess, unplanned re-aspiration or excision of brain abscess, relapse, or recurrence. The primary endpoint will be adjudicated by an independent blinded endpoint committee. Secondary outcomes include extended Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and all-cause mortality at end of treatment as well as 3, 6, and 12 months since randomization, completion of assigned treatment, IV catheter associated complications, durations of admission and antibiotic treatment, severe adverse events, quality of life scores, and cognitive evaluations. The planned sample size is 450 patients for a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 90% to exclude a difference in favor of standard treatment of more than 10%. Date of initiation of first study center was November 3, 2020, with active recruitment for 3 years and follow-up for 1 year of all patients.Discussion: The results of this study may guide future recommendations for treatment of bacterial brain abscess. If early transition to oral antibiotics proves non-inferior to standard IV treatment, this will provide considerable health and costs benefits.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04140903, first registered 28.10.2019. EudraCT number: 2019-002845-39, first registered 03.07.2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services improve health outcomes for young people with psychosis in the medium–long term, but 25% of young people disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health, families, society and the NHS. This study will evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of a team-based motivational Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention. Method: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation, comparing the EYE-2 intervention + standardised EIP service to standardised EIP service alone, with randomisation at the team level. A process evaluation will evaluate the delivery of the intervention qualitatively and quantitatively across contexts. The setting is 20 EIP teams in 5 sites: Manchester, South London, East Anglia, Thames Valley and Hampshire. Participants are young people (14–35 years) with first episode psychosis, and EIP staff. The intervention is the team-based motivational engagement (EYE-2) intervention, delivered alongside standardised EIP services, and supported by additional training, website, booklets and social groups. The comparator is the standardised EIP service. Both interventions are delivered by EIP clinicians. The primary outcome is time to disengagement (time in days from date of allocation to care coordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with EIP service, or lack of response to EIP contact for a consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes include mental and physical health, deaths, social and occupational function, recovery, satisfaction and service use at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A 12-month within-trial economic evaluation will investigate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective and from an NHS perspective. Discussion: The trial will provide the first test of an engagement intervention in standardised care, with the potential for significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of young people and their families, and economic benefits for services. The intervention will be highly scalable, supported by the toolkit including manuals, commissioning guide, training and resources, adapted to meet the needs of the diverse EIP population, and based on an in-depth process evaluation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 51629746 prospectively registered 7th May 2019. Date assigned 10th May 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: South Africa has achieved drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB) treatment success of only 77% among people with new and previously treated TB. Alternative approaches are required to improve medication adherence and treatment completion to limit transmission, TB relapse and the development of resistance. This study aims to implement and evaluate the use of adherence medication monitors (Wisepill evriMED 1000) with a differentiated response to patient care, among DS-TB patients in three provinces of South Africa.Methods: In total, 18 public health clinics across three provinces were selected. Clinics were randomised to intervention or standard of care clinics. In each clinic, approximately 145 DS-TB patients are being enrolled to reach a total of 2610. All patients have their daily adherence monitored using medication monitors. In the intervention arm, patients are receiving medication monitor reminders and differentiated care in response to adherence data. This weekly review of daily real-time monitoring will be undertaken from a central database. The differentiated care model includes automated SMS reminders with a missed dose, research staff-initiated phone call to the patient with a second or third missed dose, a home visit if four or more doses are missed, and motivational counselling if four or more doses are missed repeatedly. Fidelity of the intervention will be measured through process evaluation. Patients in control clinics will receive medication monitors for adherence tracking, standard of care TB education, and normal clinic follow-up procedures. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients by arm with >80% adherence, as measured by the medication monitor. The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention will be assessed by in-depth interviews with patients, stakeholders, and study staff. A cost effectiveness analysis of the intervention and standard of care clinics will be conducted.Significance: This trial will provide evidence for the use of an intervention, including medication monitors and differentiated care package, to improve adherence to TB treatment. Improved adherence should also improve TB treatment completion rates, thus reducing loss to follow-up rates, and TB relapse among people with TB. The intervention is intended to ultimately improve overall TB control and reduce TB transmission in South Africa.Trial Registration: Pan African Trial Registry PACTR201902681157721 . Registered on 11 February 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction notice is for an article titled "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial." The correction states that the 9th author's name is Victoria Vickerstaff, not Jessica Vickerstaff, and their affiliation is the "Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK" instead of the "Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK" as originally published. The original article has been corrected. The authors of the article are Alexandra Burton, Penny Rapaport, Marina Palomo, Kathryn Lord, Jessica Budgett, Julie Barber, Rachael Hunter, Laurie Butler, Victoria Vickerstaff, Kenneth Rockwood, Margaret Ogden, Debs Smith, Iain Lang, Gill Livingston, Briony Dow, Helen Kales, Jill Manthorpe, Kate Walters, Juanita Hoe, Vasiliki Orgeta, Quincy Samus, and Claudia Cooper. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract Background Social isolation potentiates the risk of death by cancer in the older cancer patient population. The PREDOMOS study investigates the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance on the improvement of quality of life of older isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. This paper updates the pilot trial protocol. Methods/design The original protocol was published in Trials, accessible at https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-017-1894-7. This update reports on the eligibility criteria expansion and on the adjunction of a cost-utility analysis. We widened the eligible population to patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer including malignant hemopathies (except acute myeloid leukemia) and to patients in the first and second lines of oncologic treatment. We restricted the inclusion to patients with a Mini Mental State Examination score strictly over 24. In addition to the secondary outcomes outlined in the protocol, a medico-economic analysis has been added to evaluate both the health benefits and costs of the two strategies and calculate the incremental cost-utility ratio of the innovative program assessed, compared to the standard practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762. Registered on 29 June 2016.

Background: Return to work (RTW) is achieved by less than 50% of stroke survivors. The rising incidence of stroke among younger people, the UK economic forecast, and clinical drivers highlight the need for stroke survivors to receive support with RTW. However, evidence for this type of support is lacking. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will investigate whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) is more clinically and cost-effective for supporting post-stroke RTW, than UC alone.Methods: Seven hundred sixty stroke survivors and their carers will be recruited from approximately 20 NHS stroke services. A 5:4 allocation ratio will be employed to randomise participants to receive ESSVR plus UC, or UC alone. The individually tailored ESSVR intervention will commence within 12 weeks of stroke onset and be delivered for up to 12 months as necessary by trained RETAKE occupational therapists in the community, participants' homes or workplaces, and outpatient/inpatient therapy settings, via telephone, email, or SMS text message. Outcome data will be collected via self-report questionnaires administered by post or online at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome will be self-reported RTW and job retention at 12 months (minimum 2 h/week). Secondary outcomes will include mood, function, participation, health-related quality of life, confidence, intervention compliance, health and social care resource use, and mortality. An embedded economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspectives. An embedded process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach to explore ESSVR implementation, contextual factors linked to outcome variation, and factors affecting NHS roll-out.Discussion: This article describes the protocol for a multi-centre RCT evaluating the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an early vocational rehabilitation intervention aimed at supporting adults to return to work following a stroke. Evidence favouring the ESSVR intervention would support its roll-out in NHS settings.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275 . Registered on 26 February 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Prior studies indicate that stratified care for low back pain results in better clinical outcome and reduced costs in healthcare compared to current practice. Stratified care may be associated with clinical benefits for patients with low back pain at a lower cost, but evidence is sparse. Hence this study aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of stratified care in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to current practice. Methods/design The study is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in primary care in the Regions of Southern and Central Denmark (2.5 million citizens). Patients with non-specific low back will be recruited by paticpating GPs. Patients are randomised to either (1) stratified care or (2) current practice at participating physiotherapy clinics. In the stratified care arm, the intervention is based on the patient’s STarT Back Tool classification and trained accordingly, whereas physiotherapists in the current pratice arm are blinded to the STarT score. Primary outcomes in the trial will be group differences in time off work, improvement in LBP disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patient-reported global change. Secondary measures will be pain intensity, patient satisfaction, data on patient healthcare resource utilisation and quality-adjusted life year based on the EQ-5D-5L. Discussion Stratified care that effectively targets treatment to relevant sub-groups of patients has potentially great impact on the treatment pathways of low back pain. Thus, if effective, this could result in better patient outcomes and at the same time reduce the costs for treatment of low back pain. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612467. Registered on 16 November 2015.

Background: The E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial.Methods and Design: E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Registered on 29 December 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Objective: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis.Methods: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data.Results: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting.Conclusion: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias.Trial Registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347 . Registered on 15 May 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adolescent depression is a common mental health problem and there is an urgent need for effective and accessible treatments. Internet-based interventions solve many obstacles for seeking and receiving treatment, thus increasing access to effective treatments. Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (ICBT) for adolescent depression has demonstrated efficacy in previous trials. In order to broaden the range of evidence-based treatments for young people, we evaluated a newly developed affect-focused Internet-based psychodynamic treatment (IPDT) in a previous study with promising results. The purpose of the planned study is to evaluate the efficacy of IPDT for adolescent depression in a non-inferiority trial, comparing it to ICBT.Methods: The study will employ a parallel randomized non-inferiority design (ratio 1:1; n = 270). Eligible participants are adolescents 15-19 years suffering from depression. The primary hypothesis is that IPDT will be non-inferior to ICBT in reducing depressive symptoms from pre-treatment to end of treatment. Secondary research questions include comparing outcomes of IPDT and ICBT regarding anxiety symptoms, emotion regulation and self-compassion. Additional data will be collected to evaluate cost-effectiveness as well as investigating predictors, moderators and mediators of outcome. In addition, we will examine long-term outcome up to 1 year after end of treatment. Diagnostic interviews with MINI 7.0 will be used to establish primary diagnosis of depression as well as ruling out any exclusion criteria. Both treatments consist of eight modules over 10 weeks, complemented with therapist support through text messages and weekly chat sessions. Primary outcome measure is the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents Self-Rated (QIDS-A17-SR). Primary outcome will be analysed using data from all participants entering the study using a multilevel growth curve strategy based on the weekly measurements of QIDS-A17-SR. The non-inferiority margin is defined as d = 0.30.Discussion: This trial will demonstrate whether IPDT is non-inferior to ICBT in the treatment of adolescent depression. The study might therefore broaden the range of evidence-based treatment alternatives for young people struggling with depression. Further analyses of data from this trial may increase our knowledge about "what works for whom" and the pathways of change for two distinct types of interventions.Trial Registration: ISRCTN12552584 , Registered on 13 August 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of an independent prescribing pharmacist assuming responsibility for medicines management in care homes compared to usual care.Aims and Objectives: To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RCT, in line with Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation guidance, to inform interpretation of main trial findings and if the service is found to be effective and efficient, to inform subsequent implementation.Objectives: 1. To describe the intervention as delivered in terms of quality, quantity, adaptations and variations across triads and time. 2. To explore the effects of individual intervention components on the primary outcomes. 3. To investigate the mechanisms of impact. 4. To describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components [including pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP) training and care home staff training] from participant [general practitioner (GP), care home, PIP and resident/relative] perspectives. 5. To describe the characteristics of GP, care home, PIP and resident participants to assess reach. 6. To estimate the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised among the intervention healthcare professionals and related practice staff.Methods: A mix of quantitative (surveys, record reviews) and qualitative (interviews) approaches will be used to collect data on the extent of the delivery of detailed tasks required to implement the new service, to collect data to confirm the mechanism of impact as hypothesised in the logic model, to collect explanatory process and final outcome data, and data on contextual factors which could have facilitated or hindered effective and efficient delivery of the service.Discussion: Recruitment is ongoing and the trial should complete in early 2020. The systematic and comprehensive approach that is being adopted will ensure data is captured on all aspects of the study, and allow a full understanding of the implementation of the service and the RCT findings. With so many interrelated factors involved it is important that a process evaluation is undertaken to enable us to identify which elements of the service were deemed to be effective, explain any differences seen, and identify enablers, barriers and future adaptions.Trial Registration: ISRCTN17847169. Date registered: 15 December 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common knee injury that can lead to poor quality of life, decreased activity and increased risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute ACL injury can include a non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction) approach. However, insufficient evidence to guide treatment selection has led to high variation in treatment choice for patients with non-acute presentation of ACL injury. The objective of the ACL SNNAP trial is to determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament deficiency (ACLD) whether a strategy of non-surgical management (rehabilitation) (with option for later ACL reconstruction only if required) is more clinically effective and cost effective than a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation with all patients followed up at 18 months.Methods: The study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Patients with a symptomatic non-acute ACL deficient knee will be randomised to either non-surgical management (rehabilitation) or surgical management (reconstruction). We aim to recruit 320 patients from approximately 30 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the United Kingdom. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. Blinding of patients and clinicians to treatment allocation will not be possible because of the nature of the interventions. Participants will be followed up via self-reported questionnaires at 6, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include a return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee specific quality of life and resource usage.Discussion: At present, no evidence-based treatment of non-acute ACL deficiency exists, particularly in the NHS. Moreover, little consensus exists on the management approach for these patients. The proposed trial will address this gap in knowledge regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of ACL treatment and inform future standards of care for this condition.Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 10110685. Registered on 16 November 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980367. Registered in December 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a debilitating and costly disease for our society, especially in the case of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective adjuvant therapy in treatment-resistant unipolar and non-psychotic depression. It can be applied according to two therapeutic strategies after an initial rTMS cure: a further rTMS cure can be performed at the first sign of relapse or recurrence, or systematic maintenance rTMS (M-rTMS) can be proposed. TMS adjuvant to treatment as usual (TAU) could improve long-term prognosis. However, no controlled study has yet compared the cost-effectiveness of these two additional rTMS therapeutic strategies versus TAU alone.Methods/design: This paper focuses on the design of a health-economic, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study with three parallel arms carried out in France. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the adjunctive and maintenance low frequency rTMS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex versus TAU alone. A total of 318 patients suffering from a current TRD will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ratio costs / quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] measured by the Euroqol Five Dimension Questionnaire) over 12 months in a population of patients assigned to one of three arms: systematic M-rTMS for responders (arm A); additional new rTMS cure in case of mood deterioration among responders (arm B); and a placebo arm (arm C) in which responders are allocated in two subgroups: sham systematic M-rTMS and supplementary rTMS course in case of mood deterioration. ICER and QALYs will be compared between arm A or B versus arm C. The secondary endpoints in each three arms will be: ICER at 24 months; the cost-utility ratio analysis at 12 and 24 months; 5-year budget impact analysis; and prognosis factors of rTMS. The following criteria will be compared between arm A or B and arm C: rates of responders; remission and disease-free survival; clinical evolution; tolerance; observance; treatment modifications; hospitalization; suicide attempts; work stoppage; marital / professional statues; and quality of life at 12 and 24 months.Discussion: The purpose of our study is to check the cost-effectiveness of rTMS and we will discuss its economic impact over time. In the case of significant decrease in the depression costs and expenditures associated with a good long-term prognosis (sustained response and remission) and tolerance, rTMS could be considered as an efficient treatment within the armamentarium for resistant unipolar depression.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03701724. Registered on 10 October 2018. Protocol Amendment Version 2.0 accepted on 29 June 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large proportion of Syrians have been exposed to potentially traumatic events, multiple losses, and breakdown of supportive social networks and many of them have sought refuge in host countries where they also face post-migration living difficulties such as discrimination or integration problems or both. These adversities may put Syrian refugees at high risk for common mental disorders. In response to this, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a trans-diagnostic scalable psychological intervention called Problem Management Plus (PM+) to reduce psychological distress among populations exposed to adversities. PM+ has been adapted for Syrian refugees and can be delivered by non-specialist peer lay persons in the community.Methods: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted with 380 Syrian refugees in Turkey. After providing informed consent, participants with high levels of psychological distress (scoring above 15 on the Kessler-10 Psychological Distress Scale (K10)) and functional impairment (scoring above 16 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, or WHODAS 2.0) will be randomly assigned to Group PM+/enhanced care as usual (Group PM+/E-CAU) (n = 190) or E-CAU (n = 190). Outcome assessments will take place 1 week after the fifth session (post-assessment), 3 months after the fifth session and 12 months after baseline assessment. The primary outcome is psychological distress as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). Secondary outcomes include functional impairment, post-traumatic stress symptoms, self-identified problems, and health system and productivity costs. A process evaluation will be conducted to explore the feasibility, challenges and success of the intervention with 25 participants, including participants, facilitators, policy makers and mental health professionals.Discussion: The treatment manual of the Syrian-Arabic Group PM+ and training materials will be made available through the WHO once the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Group PM+ have been established.Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03960892. Unique protocol ID: 10/2017. Prospectively registered on 21 May 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context.Aims and Objectives: To conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care.Objectives: To perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial.Methods: This protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3 months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less.Discussion: Recruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain is a common symptom and continuous or recurrent pain results in chronic low back pain (CLBP). While many patients with CLBP have tried various treatments, complementary and alternative medicine including acupuncture and herbal medicine is one of the commonly used treatments. Palmijihwang-hwan is a herbal medicine used frequently in clinical practice but there has been no report of the efficacy, safety, or cost-effectiveness analysis of Palmijihwang-hwan for CLBP.Methods: This study is a randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter, clinical trial with two parallel groups. Four Korean medicine hospitals will recruit 84 participants and randomly allocate them into the control or treatment group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will receive acupuncture treatment at 11 local and 4 distal acupuncture points for 20 min twice a week for 6 weeks. The treatment group will receive the same acupuncture treatment as the control group and also take Palmijihwang-hwan for 6 weeks. The primary outcome will be the change in visual analog scale (VAS) score between baseline (visit 1) and completion of the intervention (visit 12), and secondary outcomes will be pain-related clinical relevance (minimal clinical important difference or the proportion of the participants who decrease more than 30, or 50% on VAS), disability (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality of life (EuroQol-5D), global assessment (Patient Global Impression of Change), and economic analysis (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis). Additionally, safety will be assessed.Discussion: The results of our study will provide the clinical evidence about the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness analysis of Palmijihwang-hwan for CLBP. There will be a chance to provide multiple subdivided influence of this treatment with various outcome measures, but lack of placebo is our limitation.Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0002998. Registered on 12 July 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their marginal benefit, about 60% of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) are currently treated with antibiotics in Catalonia. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of a continuous disease-focused intervention (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and an illness-focused intervention (enhancement of communication skills to optimise doctor-patient consultations) on antibiotic prescribing in patients with ALRTIs in Catalan primary care centres.Methods/design: A cluster randomised, factorial, controlled trial aimed at including 20 primary care centres (N = 2940 patients) with patients older than 18 years of age presenting for a first consultation with an ALRTI will be included in the study. Primary care centres will be identified on the basis of socioeconomic data and antibiotic consumption. Centres will be randomly assigned according to hierarchical clustering to any of four trial arms: usual care, CRP testing, enhanced communication skills backed up with patient leaflets, or combined interventions. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be performed from the societal and national healthcare system perspectives, and the time horizon of the analysis will be 1 year. Two qualitative studies (pre- and post-clinical trial) aimed to identify the expectations and concerns of patients with ALRTIs and the barriers and facilitators of each intervention arm will be run. Family doctors and nurses assigned to the interventions will participate in a 2-h training workshop before the inception of the trial and will receive a monthly intervention-tailored training module during the year of the trial period. Primary outcomes will be antibiotic use within the first 6 weeks, duration of moderate to severe cough, and the quality-adjusted life-years. Secondary outcomes will be duration of illness and severity of cough measured using a symptom diary, healthcare re-consultations, hospital admissions, and complications. Healthcare costs will be considered and expressed in 2021 euros (year foreseen to finalise the study) of the current year of the analysis. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses will be carried out.Discussion: The ISAAC-CAT project will contribute to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different strategies for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing that are currently out of the scope of the actual clinical guidelines.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03931577. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimising the management of peri-operative pain and recovery following knee replacement has been identified as a patient priority. Current pain relief strategies use opiate-based analgesia; however, up to 50% of patients experience significant side effects. Local anaesthetic incisional infiltration is one alternative. The length of the duration of action is a major limiting factor of current local anaesthetic techniques. Liposomal bupivacaine has been reported to be effective for up to 72 h. This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine.Methods: SPAARK is a patient-blinded, multi-centre, active comparator, superiority, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Five hundred patients undergoing knee replacement will be recruited and randomised to liposomal bupivacaine plus bupivacaine hydrochloride or bupivacaine hydrochloride alone. The co-primary outcomes are the Quality of Recovery 40 measured at 72 h post-surgery and also cumulative pain measured daily using a 0-10 visual analogue scale for the first 3 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes include cumulative opioid consumption, fitness for discharge, functional outcomes assessed using the Oxford Knee Score and American Knee Society Score, the EuroQol five dimensions instrument and complications. A cost utility analysis is also planned.Discussion: The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine have yet to be evaluated in the National Health Service, making this trial appropriate and timely.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN54191675. Registered on 14 November 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development of efficacious, cost-effective, and widely accessible programs for the prevention of eating disorders (EDs) is crucial in order to reduce the ED-related burden of illness. Programs using dissonance-based and cognitive behavioral approaches are most effective for the selective prevention of ED. Internet-based delivery is assumed to maximize the reach and impact of preventive efforts. However, the current evidence for Internet-based ED prevention is limited. The present trial evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two new interventions (based on dissonance theory and principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)) that are implemented as add-ons to the existing Internet-based ED prevention program ProYouth.Methods: The trial is one of five sub-projects of the German multicenter consortium ProHEAD. It is a three-arm, parallel, randomized controlled superiority trial. Participants will be randomized to (1) the online program ProYouth (active control condition) or (2) ProYouth plus a structured dissonance-based module or (3) ProYouth plus a CBT-based chat group intervention. As part of ProHEAD, a representative school-based sample of N = 15,000 students (≥ 12 years) will be screened for mental health problems. N = 309 participants at risk for ED (assessed with the Weight Concerns Scale (WCS) and the Short Evaluation of Eating Disorders (SEED)) will be included in the present trial. Online assessments will be conducted at baseline, at end of intervention (6 weeks), at 6 months follow-up, and - as part of ProHEAD - at 12 and 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome is ED-related impairment (assessed with the Child version of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (ChEDE-Q)) at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes include ED-related symptomatology at follow-up, ED-related stigma, ED-related help-seeking, and acceptance of and compliance with the interventions. For the health economic evaluation data on costs of the interventions, healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life will be assessed.Discussion: This is the first study augmenting a flexible prevention approach such as ProYouth with structured evidence-based modules in order to overcome some of the key limitations in the current practice of ED prevention.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00014679 . Registered on 25 April 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hearing and vision impairments are highly prevalent in people with dementia and may have a negative impact on quality of life and other dementia-related outcomes. Intervening to optimise sensory impairment and support sensory function may be a means of improving dementia-related outcomes. The SENSE-Cog trial will test whether a home-based multi-part sensory intervention is effective in improving quality of life and other key outcomes in people with dementia and hearing or vision problems (or both) and their companions.Methods: This is an European, multi-centre, observer-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Three hundred fifty four people with dementia and hearing or vision impairment (or both) and their companions will be randomly assigned to receive either "care as usual" or a multi-component sensory intervention including assessment and correction of hearing or vision impairments (or both), home-based (maximum 10 visits over 18 weeks), therapist-delivered sensory support (that is, adherence to devices; improving the sensory environment (that is, lighting), communication training, and sign-posting to other support agencies). Change from baseline to intervention end (18 weeks) and post-intervention (36 weeks) will be compared between the two arms in the following outcomes: quality of life (primary endpoint), sensory and cognitive functional ability, relationships, mental well-being, health resource utilisation and cost-effectiveness.Discussion: This is one of two articles outlining the SENSE-Cog trial. Here, we describe the protocol for the effectiveness of the SENSE-Cog intervention. A parallel and complementary process evaluation will be described elsewhere. If the SENSE-Cog trial demonstrates that the sensory intervention improves outcomes in dementia, we will make a toolkit of training materials, resources and information available to health and social care providers to implement the intervention in routine practice. This will be a significant contribution to the therapeutic management of people with dementia and sensory impairment.Trial Registration: ISRCTN (Trial ID: ISRCTN17056211 ) on 19 February 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain is a global public health problem and a leading cause of disability all over the world. The lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 70-80% and a significant proportion of people affected develop chronic low back pain (CLBP). Besides a severe negative impact on people's health and health-related quality of life, CLBP is associated with substantial costs for society. Medical costs for the management of CLBP and costs for production losses due to absenteeism from work are sizeable. Pharmaceuticals, physical activity, manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions are examples of widely used treatments for CLBP. However, the scientific basis to recommend the use of one treatment over another is limited and more research is needed to study the effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP in clinical practice. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness (back pain-related functional limitation, back pain intensity, general health, health-related quality of life, and working status), costs (medical costs and costs for production losses) and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy when added to information and advice in the treatment of patients with non-specific CLBP in Sweden.Methods/design: This is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, where participants are recruited through six primary care rehabilitation units (PCRUs) in Stockholm County Council, Sweden. Individuals with non-specific CLBP are individually randomised to one of four treatment groups: 'information and advice'; 'physiotherapy, and information and advice'; 'chiropractic care, and information and advice'; or 'chiropractic care, physiotherapy, and information and advice'. A sample size of 600 participants will be recruited during a period of 33 months. A computer-based questionnaire is used to collect data on back pain-related functional limitation (Oswestry Disability Index), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), general health (self-rated health), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and working status (measured as percentage of full-time work). Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline.Discussion: The results from our study should be considered when producing evidence-based guidelines and recommendations on which treatment strategies to use for CLBP.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN15830360 . Registered prospectively on 2 February 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early marriages, pregnancies and births are the major cause of school drop-out among adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa. Birth complications are also one of the leading causes of death among adolescent girls. This paper outlines a protocol for a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and an extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) of a comprehensive adolescent pregnancy prevention program in Zambia. It aims to estimate the expected costs, monetary and non-monetary benefits associated with health-related and non-health outcomes, as well as their distribution across populations with different standards of living.Methods: The study will be conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, which is testing the hypothesis that economic support with or without community dialogue is an effective strategy for reducing adolescent childbearing rates. The CBA will estimate net benefits by comparing total costs with monetary benefits of health-related and non-health outcomes for each intervention package. The ECEA will estimate the costs of the intervention packages per unit health and non-health gain stratified by the standards of living. Cost data include program implementation costs, healthcare costs (i.e. costs associated with adolescent pregnancy and birth complications such as low birth weight, pre-term birth, eclampsia, medical abortion procedures and post-abortion complications) and costs of education and participation in community and youth club meetings. Monetary benefits are returns to education and averted healthcare costs. For the ECEA, health gains include reduced rate of adolescent childbirths and non-health gains include averted out-of-pocket expenditure and financial risk protection. The economic evaluations will be conducted from program and societal perspectives.Discussion: While the planned intervention is both comprehensive and expensive, it has the potential to produce substantial short-term and long-term health and non-health benefits. These benefits should be considered seriously when evaluating whether such a program can justify the required investments in a setting with scarce resources. The economic evaluations outlined in this paper will generate valuable information that can be used to guide large-scale implementation of programs to address the problem of the high prevalence of adolescent childbirth and school drop-outs in similar settings.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02709967. Registered on 2 March 2016. ISRCTN, ISRCTN12727868. Registered on 4 March 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Behavioural problems are common in early childhood, and can result in enduring costs to the individual and society, including an increased risk of mental and physical illness, criminality, educational failure and drug and alcohol misuse. Most previous research has examined the impact of interventions targeting older children when difficulties are more established and harder to change, and have rarely included fathers. We are conducting a trial of a psychological intervention delivered to families with very young children, engaging both parents where possible.Methods: This study is a two-arm, parallel group, researcher-blind, randomized controlled trial, to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention, Video Feedback Intervention to Promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) for parents of young children (12-36 months) at risk of behavioural difficulties. VIPP-SD is an evidence-based parenting intervention developed at Leiden University in the Netherlands which uses a video-feedback approach to support parents, particularly by enhancing parental sensitivity and sensitive discipline in caring for children. The trial will involve 300 families, who will be randomly allocated into either an intervention group, who will receive the video-feedback intervention (n = 150), or a control group, who will receive treatment as usual (n = 150). The trial will evaluate whether VIPP-SD, compared to treatment as usual, leads to lower levels of behavioural problems in young children who are at high risk of developing these difficulties. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, and 5 and 24 months post-randomization. The primary outcome measure is a modified version of the Preschool Parental Account of Child Symptoms (Pre-PACS), a structured clinical interview of behavioural symptoms. Secondary outcomes include caregiver-reported behavioural difficulties, parenting behaviours, parental sensitivity, parental mood and anxiety and parental relationship adjustment. An economic evaluation will also be carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to treatment as usual.Discussion: If shown to be effective, the intervention could be delivered widely to parents and caregivers of young children at risk of behavioural problems as part of community based services.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN58327365 . Registered 19 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) is a new intervention for young, expectant mothers implemented successfully in pilot studies. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gFNP in reducing risk factors for maltreatment with a potentially vulnerable population.Methods: A multi-site, randomized controlled, parallel-arm trial and prospective economic evaluation was conducted, with allocation via remote randomization (minimization by site, maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Participants were expectant mothers aged below 20 years with at least one live birth, or aged 20-24 years with no live births and with low educational qualifications. Data from maternal interviews at baseline and when infants were 2, 6 and 12 months, and video-recording at 12 months, were collected by researchers blind to allocation. Cost information came from weekly logs completed by gFNP family nurses and other service delivery data reported by participants. Primary outcomes measured at 12 months were parenting attitudes (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Index, AAPI-2) and maternal sensitivity (CARE Index). The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective with cost-effectiveness expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The main analyses were intention-to-treat with additional complier average causal effects (CACE) analyses.Results: Between August 2013 and September 2014, 492 names of potential participants were received of whom 319 were eligible and 166 agreed to take part, 99 randomly assigned to receive gFNP and 67 to usual care. There were no between-arm differences in AAPI-2 total (7 · 5/10 in both, SE 0.1), difference adjusted for baseline, site and maternal age group 0 · 06 (95% CI - 0 · 15 to 0 · 28, p = 0 · 59) or CARE Index (intervention 4 · 0 (SE 0 · 3); control 4 · 7 (SE 0 · 4); difference adjusted for site and maternal age group - 0 · 68 (95% CI - 1 · 62 to 0 · 16, p = 0 · 25) scores. The probability that gFNP is cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%.Conclusions: The trial did not support gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child maltreatment in this population but slow recruitment adversely affected group size and consequently delivery of the intervention.Trial Registration: ISRCTN78814904 . Registered on 17 May 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health issue associated with considerable health loss and societal costs. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the management of LBP; however, GP care has not been shown to be the most cost-effective approach unless exercise and behavioural counselling are added to usual care. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP has been developed to assist GPs to manage LBP by empowering exploration and management of psychosocial barriers to recovery and provision of evidence-based care and information. The aim of the Low Back Pain in General Practice (LBPinGP) trial is to explore whether patients with LBP who receive care from GPs trained in the FREE approach have better outcomes than those who receive usual care.Methods/design: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the FREE approach with usual care for LBP management with investigator-blinded assessment of outcomes. GPs will be recruited and then cluster randomised (in practice groups) to the intervention or control arm. Intervention arm GPs will receive training in the FREE approach, and control arm GPs will continue to practice as usual. Patients presenting to their GP with a primary complaint of LBP will be allocated on the basis of allocation of the GP they consult. We aim to recruit 60 GPs and 275 patients (assuming patients are recruited from 75% of GPs and an average of 5 patients per GP complete the study, accounting for 20% patient participant dropout). Patient participants and the trial statistician will be blind to group allocation throughout the study. Analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome will be back-related functional impairment 6 months post-initial LBP consultation (interim data at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months), measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary patient outcomes include pain, satisfaction, quality of life, days off from work and costs of care. Secondary GP outcomes include beliefs about pain and impairment, GP confidence, and actual and reported clinical behaviour. Health economic and process evaluations will be conducted.Discussion: In the LBPinGP trial, we will investigate providing an intervention during the first interaction a person with back pain has with their GP. Because the FREE approach is used within a normal GP consultation, if effective, it may be a cost-effective means of improving LBP care.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000888460 . Registered on 6 July 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immunosuppression non-adherence in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) not only increases the risk of medical intervention due to acute rejection and graft loss but burdens the socioeconomic system in the form of increased healthcare costs. An aggressive preemptive effort by healthcare professionals, geared to ensure adherence to immunosuppressants in KTRs, is significant and imperative.Methods/design: This study was designed as a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study aimed at evaluating the efficacy and stability of an information and communication technology (ICT)-based centralized monitoring system in boosting medication adherence in KTRs. One hundred fourteen KTRs registered throughout the year 2017 to 2018 are randomized into either the ICT-based centralized home monitoring system or to ambulatory follow-up. The planned follow-up duration is 6 months. The ICT-based centralized home monitoring system described consists of a smart pill box equipped with personal identification system, a home monitoring system, an electronic Case Report Form (eCRF) system, and a comprehensive clinical trial management system (CTMS). It alerts both patients and medical staff with texts and pill box alarms if there is a dosage/dosing time error or a missed dose. Medication adherence and transplant outcomes for the follow-up period are compared between the two groups, while patient satisfaction as well as the stability and cost-effectiveness of the ICT-based monitoring system are to be evaluated.Discussion: This on-going study is expected to determine if consistent use of the ICT-based centralized monitoring system described could maximize mediation adherence and subsequently enhance transplant outcomes in KTRs. Further, it would lay the foundation for successful implementation of this ICT-based monitoring system for effective management of medication adherence in KTRs.Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03136588 . Registered on 20 April 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Requirements for frequent dispensing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) place demands on health systems and can lead to suboptimal adherence and disengagement in care for patients due to the time and cost of frequent clinic visits. Rigorous data are needed to define optimal ART dispensing strategies and to evaluate the impact of a longer medication supply on retention and virologic suppression and determine whether this strategy lowers costs for both the patient and the health system. To date, no randomized studies have tested the benefits of 6-month dispensing of ART compared to 3-month and standard of care approaches.Methods: This study will be an unblinded cluster-randomized, matched controlled trial conducted among 8200 stable, HIV-infected individuals age 18 years and older on ART in Malawi and Zambia, to compare three ART dispensing intervals on the outcomes of retention in care (primary outcome), virologic suppression, and cost-effectiveness. Thirty clusters will be matched according to country, facility type, and ART cohort size and randomized to one of three study arms: standard of care, 3-month dispensing, and 6-month dispensing. Study participants will be followed, and outcomes will be measured at 12, 24, and 36 months. A subset of participants (n = 240) and providers (n = 180) will also participate in qualitative interviews to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of different ART dispensing intervals.Discussion: This study will be the first to compare 6-month and 3-month ART dispensing intervals for stable, HIV-infected individuals in Malawi and Zambia. We focus on outcomes relevant to country programs, including retention, virologic suppression, and cost-effectiveness. Results from the study will help resource-limited health systems better understand the full scope of outcomes resulting from various ART dispensing intervals and help to inform health policy decisions.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03101592 . Registered on 18 March 2017. Pan African Clinical Trials, PACTR201706002336105 . Registered on 2 June 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]